ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
1
Use the Dropdown to Filter by Key Issue(s):
2
Case NameDate FiledKey IssuesStatusOverviewLast Updated
3
Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd.
(N.D. Cal. No. 3:23-cv-00201)		1/13/2023Training AIA hearing on the four plaintiffs' motions to dismiss the first amended complaint took place on May 8, 2024. In advance of the hearing, the court issued the following tentative rulings on May 7, 2024: (1) court is likely to grant a request from Plaintiffs to amend their complaint to add additional plaintiffs, but not to include the new unjust enrichment claims, reiterating that the court believes such claims are preempted by the Copyright Act; (2) court is likely to deny Defendants' motions to dismiss the direct and induced infringement claims, noting that the facts regarding how the diffusion models operate should be tested at summary judgment; and (3) court is inclined to grant Defendants' motions to dismiss the DMCA and contract claims and deny the motion to dismiss the false endorsement and trade claims.

Awaiting the court's formal order on all four motions to dismiss.		A trio of visual artists initiated a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Stability AI Ltd., Stability AI, Inc., Deviant Art, Inc., and Midjourney, Inc. The artists claim that their copyrighted imagery was used without permission to train the companies' generative AI technologies. In response, each defendant sought to have the charges dismissed. The court dismissed all allegations against all defendants, excluding the direct copyright infringement claim specifically aimed at Stability AI. Following this decision, Plaintiffs revised their lawsuit to include Runway AI, Inc. Currently, each defendant has filed motions to dismiss the claims detailed in Plaintiffs' amended complaint.6/24/2024
4
Authors Guild v. OpenAI
(S.D.N.Y. No. 23-cv-8292)		9/19/2023Training AIOn April 1, 2024, the court denied the Tremblay Plaintiffs' motion to intervene.

On April 13, 2024, the Tremblay Plaintiffs filed a notice of interlocutory appeal to the Second Circuit regarding the denial of their motion to intervene in the SDNY lawsuit.

On April 16, 2024, OpenAI filed an opposition to Plaintiffs' motion to compel documents. That same day, OpenAI filed a motion to file under seal and its response to Plaintiffs' motion to file under seal.

Parties are currently undergoing discovery disputes.		The Authors Guild, along with a group of renowned writers, has initiated legal action against several entities associated with OpenAI. They claim that in the process of developing its GPT (Generative Pre-trained Transformer) models, OpenAI replicated the authors' protected materials. The legal claim distinctly attributes responsibility to each OpenAI entity based on their specific involvement, accusing them of either direct, vicarious, or contributory copyright infringement. Plaintiffs’ legal arguments are solely concerned with the development of the GPT models themselves and do not challenge the legality of the content generated by the GPT technology or its subsequent use.

What started as three separate cases brought by three different author groups has been consolidated into a single action against OpenAI and Microsoft.
Consolidated Cases: (1) Authors Guild v. OpenAI, No. 1:23-cv-08292; (2) Alter v. OpenAI, No. 1:23-cv-10211; (3) Basbanes v. Microsoft Corp., No. 1:24-cv-00084.		6/24/2024
5
Secondary Liability
6
Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC
(N.D. Cal. No. 3:24-cv-03811)		10/18/2023Training AIOn April 19, 2024, the court issued an order on Plaintiffs' motion to ascertain case status, noting that Defendant's motion to dismiss and Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction will be decided in due course. The court also denied Plaintiff's motion requesting oral argument. On May 10, 2024, the parties filed a joint status report on their case resolution discussions indicating they are "currently too far apart to have a productive discussion at this time."

On June 24, 2024, the court transferred the case from the Middle District of Tennessee to the Northern District of California, finding the eight music publishers failed to prove the Tennessee court had personal jurisdiction. The order did not rule on the pending motion for a preliminary injunction.		Numerous prominent music publishers have initiated a lawsuit against Anthropic PBC on the grounds of primary and contributory copyright infringement, as well as violations of DMCA Section 1202(b). Plaintiffs contend that Anthropic has unlawfully (1) generated and utilized copies of copyrighted song lyrics to develop its AI product, Claude; and (2) reproduced, disseminated, and openly exhibited those lyrics via Claude's generated content, all the while stripping away the copyright management information (CMI). Furthermore, Plaintiffs have sought a preliminary injunction that, if granted, would mandate Anthropic to install effective preventative measures within its Claude AI system. These measures would be intended to halt the generation of outputs that violate the copyright of Plaintiffs' song lyrics and would forbid Anthropic from generating or utilizing unauthorized copies of such lyrics for the training of future AI models.6/26/2024
7
AI Output
8
Copyright Management Information (CMI)
9
Daily News LP v. Microsoft Corp.
(S.D.N.Y. No. 1:24-cv-03285)		4/30/2024Training AIThe parties are briefing Defendants’ respective motions to dismiss and OpenAI’s motion to consolidate this case with New York Times Co. v. Microsoft Corp. (S.D.N.Y. No. 1:24-cv-11195).

On June 25, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a memorandum of law in opposition to OpenAI Defendants' motion to dismiss.		Eight newspaper publishers, including The New York Daily News, Chicago Tribune, Orlando Sentinel, and San Jose Mercury News, sued Microsoft and OpenAI, alleging that their generative AI models infringe on Plaintiffs' copyrighted articles by using their articles to train the generative AI models without compensation or permission.6/26/2024
10
Copyright Infringement
11
Doe v. GitHub, Inc.
(N.D. Cal. No. 4:22-cv-06823)		11/3/2022Source Code InfringementOpenAI and Microsoft filed motions to dismiss Plaintiffs' second amended complaint. On May 3, 2024, the court found these motions suitable for disposition without oral argument and canceled the hearing set for May 16, 2024.

On June 24, 2024, the court granted in part and denied in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, but the order was issued under seal because it refers to matters subject to the already granted sealing order. The court instructed the parties to submit (1) a stipulated proposed redacted version of the order, redacting only those portions of the order containing or referring to material for which the court has granted a motion to seal and which the parties still request be sealed, or (2) a stipulation that the parties agree that no redaction is necessary.

A virtual hearing on the parties' Joint Discovery Letter is set for July 11, 2024.		In these consolidated cases, unnamed plaintiffs asserted claims against GitHub, Microsoft, and OpenAI alleging that these defendants appropriated the plaintiffs' copyrighted content to develop Codex and Copilot (Codex is the OpenAI model that underpins GitHub’s AI coding assistant, Copilot). Plaintiffs accuse Copilot of not adhering to the open-source software (OSS) licenses governing use of their code which was hosted on GitHub. Following two partially successful motions to dismiss, the Second Amended Complaint alleges removal of copyright manangement information (CMI) in violation of the DMCA, open source license violations, and breach of GitHub's policies.6/24/2024
12
Dubus v. NVIDIA Corp.
(N.D. Cal. No. 4:24-cv-02655)		5/2/2024Training AIOn May 29, 2024, the court granted Plaintiffs' motion to relate this case with Nazemian v. NVIDIA Corp. (N.D. Cal. No. 3:24-cv-01454).

Defendants' response to the complaint is due by July 1, 2024. Joint Case Management Statement due by August 13, 2024. Initial Case Management Conference set for August 20, 2024.		Audre Dubus III and Susan Orlean, two authors, filed a class action lawsuit against NVIDIA Corporation, alleging use of their copyrighted works in the training dataset NVIDIA used to train its NeMo Megatron models, released in September 2022. The complaint alleges that each of the NeMo Megatron models is hosted on a website called Hugging Face and each has a model card that provides information about the model, including its training dataset – for each of the NeMo Megatron models, the model card states that "the model was trained on 'The Pile' dataset prepared by Eleuther AI" (which includes the Book3 dataset, derived from the Bibliothik shadow library). The complaint is for direct copyright infringement. 6/24/2024
13
Getty Images v. Stability AI
(D. Del. No. 1:23-cv-00135)		2/3/2023Trademark InfringementOn January 26, 2024, the court denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss or transfer without prejudice to re-file after the conclusion of jurisdictional discovery.Getty Images initiated legal action against Stability AI, alleging that the company infringed upon over 12 million photographs along with their captions and metadata in the creation and provision of Stable Diffusion and DreamStudio. Additionally, this lawsuit encompasses claims of trademark infringement, which stem from the technology in question's capacity to reproduce Getty Images' watermarks within the outputs produced by the generative AI.4/24/2024
14
AI Output
15
Huckabee v. Bloomberg
(S.D.N.Y. No. 1:23-cv-09152)		10/17/2023Training AIDefendant's motion to dismiss has been fully briefed.

Awaiting court's ruling on Defendant's request for oral argument on the motion to dismiss Plaintiff's first amended complaint.		Mike Huckabee, the ex-governor of Arkansas, and co-plaintiffs brought forth a class action lawsuit against Meta, Bloomberg, Microsoft, and the EleutherAI Institute. They accuse Meta, Bloomberg, and Microsoft of using EleutherAI's datasets to train their large language models (LLMs). Plaintiffs consented to move their legal action against Meta and Microsoft to California and opted to voluntarily dismiss their case against EleutherAI without any ruling on the case's merits. Subsequently, Plaintiffs revised their lawsuit to exclusively target the Bloomberg companies as defendants.6/24/2024
16
The Intercept Media, Inc. v. OpenAI, Inc.
(S.D.N.Y. No. 1:24-cv-01515)		2/28/2024Training AIOn June 21, 2024, Plaintiff filed its first amended complaint. Defendants' supplemental brief in support of their motions to dismiss is due by July 8, 2024. The court will treat Defendants' already filed motions as aimed at the first amended complaint.

Plaintiff's supplemental brief in opposition to Defendants' renewed motions to dismiss is due by July 15, 2024.		The Intercept Media, Inc., a news outlet, sued OpenAI claiming violations of the DMCA connected to the alleged incorporation of the plaintiff’s journalistic works into the datasets employed in training ChatGPT.6/24/2024
17
Copyright Management Information (CMI)
18
Kadrey v. Meta
(N.D. Cal. No. 23-cv-03417)		7/7/2023Training AIMeta filed its answer to Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint on January 10, 2024. On January 23, 2024, the court granted Plaintiffs' motion to relate Kadrey v. Meta and Huckabee v. Meta (N.D. Cal. No. 23-cv-06663).

On June 24, 2024, the magistrate judge granted the parties' joint administrative motion to file a combined joint statement re discovery dispute. 		Concurrently with filing a comparable lawsuit against OpenAI, Plaintiffs launched a class action suit against Meta. The first amended complaint alleges that Meta's LLaMA technology infringes their copyrights, specifically contending that the creation and training of LLaMA involved the unauthorized use of the Books3 dataset.6/26/2024
19
Leovy v. Google
(N.D. Cal. No. 3:23-cv-03440)		7/11/2023Training AIOn June 6, 2024, the court granted Google's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' first amended complaint. Plaintiffs' second amended complaint is due by June 27, 2024.

The court will hear argument on the motion to dismiss on August 22, 2024. Motion Hearing is set for September 5, 2024. Case Management Statement is due by November 27, 2024. Initial Case Management Conference is set for October 3, 2024.		Plaintiffs initiated a proposed class action suit based on allegations that Google improperly harvested personal data and copyrighted content to develop its artificial intelligence offerings, such as Bard. Initially, the lawsuit charged Google with direct and secondary copyright infringement, infringement under Section 1202 of the DMCA, and a host of other legal wrongs. Subsequently, Plaintiffs dropped their claims against Alphabet Inc. and Google DeepMind, narrowing the case to focus solely on Google LLC. The restructured lawsuit now centers primarily around accusations of privacy law contraventions and contractual breaches. The scope of the copyright claims has been reduced, now primarily targeting direct infringement related to training Bard with copyrighted materials and the generation of derivative content from those works.6/24/2024
20
AI Output
21
Privacy Violations
22
Makkai v. Databricks, Inc. and Mosaic ML
(N.D. Cal. No. 3:24-cv-02653)		5/2/2024Training AIOn May 13, 2024, the court related this case to the first-filed case O'Nan et al. v. Databricks, Inc. and Mosaic ML, No. 3:24-cv-01451.

The Initial Case Management Conference is set for August 2, 2024.		Authors Rebecca Makkai and Jason Reynolds have filed a class action lawsuit in the US District Court for the Northern District of California against MosaicML and its parent company, Databricks. Makkai, author of "The Hundred Year House," and Reynolds, writer of "As Brave as You," both hold copyrights for their works. The suit alleges that MosaicML included their copyrighted content in the training data for its MosaicML Pretrained Transformer (MPT), specifically the MPT-7B and MPT-30B models. MosaicML admits the training data for these models incorporates the "RedPajama – Books" dataset, available on Hugging Face's website. This dataset is a replication of the Books3 dataset, part of The Pile, originating from the Bibliothik shadow library of about 196,640 books. The complaint accuses MosaicML of direct copyright infringement and Databricks of vicarious infringement post their July 2023 acquisition of MosaicML.6/24/2024
23
Copyright Infringement
24
Nazemian et al. v. NVIDIA Corp.
(N.D. Cal. No. 3:24-cv-01454)		3/8/2024Training AIJoint Case Management Statement due by August 13, 2024.

Initial Case Management Conference continued to August 20, 2024.		Three authors (Brian Keene, Abdi Nazemian, and Stewart O'Nan) sued NVIDIA Corporation, alleging the company used their copyrighted books without permission to train its NeMo AI platform. NVIDIA’s language models have been released on the Hugging Face platform, where they are presented with "model cards" that provide a detailed account of each model, including insights into the training datasets utilized. The plaintiffs further allege that the training datasets included "The Pile," a compilation put together by EleutherAI, which the plaintiffs believe contains their protected works.6/26/2024
25
The New York Times v. Microsoft
(S.D.N.Y. No. 23-cv-11195)		12/27/2023AI OutputOn March 4, 2024, Microsoft filed a motion to dismiss. The New York Times opposed the motion and requested oral argument.

On April 1, 2024, the court denied the Tremblay Plaintiffs' motion to intervene. On April 13, 2024, the Tremblay Plaintiffs filed a notice of interlocutory appeal to the Second Circuit regarding the denial of their motion to intervene.

On May 3, the court issued a scheduling order calling for discovery to be completed by December 9, 2024 and motions for summary judgment to be filed by January 7, 2025.

On May 20, the New York Times sought leave to file a first amended complaint. Defendants filed motions to compel discovery and to consolidate the case with the Daily News lawsuit. On June 25, 2024, Defendants filed supplemental authority on the motion to compel Plaintiff to disclose information related to how it produced the examples of ChatGPT regurgitation in Exhibit J of the Complaint.
The New York Times (NYT) claims that a vast number of its protected works have been utilized in the construction of Microsoft's Copilot (previously known as Bing Chat) and OpenAI's ChatGPT large language models. It further asserts that these AI platforms produce responses that either exactly replicate or closely paraphrase content from the NYT, imitate its distinctive writing style, and inaccurately ascribe generated content to the NYT.		6/26/2024
26
O'Nan et al. v. Databricks, Inc.
and MosaicML, Inc.
(N.D. Cal. No. 3:24-cv-01451)		3/8/2024Training AICase Management Conference rescheduled to August 2, 2024.Stewart O'Nan, Abdi Nazemian, and Brian Keene, three authors, sued MosaicML and its parent company, Databricks, accusing the company of copyright infringement relating to the training of MosaicML's Pretrained Transformer (MPT) models, including MPT-7B and MPT-30B. The authors allege that the MPTs were trained on a large quantity of data taken from a component dataset called 'RedPajama - Books', which was a dataset hosted on Huggnig Face and in respect of which the 'Books' component is a copy of the "Books3 dataset", which is
itself a component of The Pile dataset. The complaint also alleges vicarious infringement against Databricks.		6/26/2024
27
Raw Story Media v. OpenAI, Inc.
(S.D.N.Y. No. 1:24-cv-01514)		2/28/2024Training AIOn June 21, 2024, Plaintiff filed its first amended complaint.

Defendants' supplemental brief in support of their motions to dismiss is due by July 8, 2024. The court will treat Defendants' already filed motions as aimed at the first amended complaint. Plaintiff's supplemental brief in opposition to Defendants' renewed motions to dismiss is due by July 15, 2024.		Raw Story Media, a news outlet, sued OpenAI claiming violations of the DMCA connected to the alleged incorporation of the plaintiff’s journalistic works into the datasets employed in training ChatGPT.6/24/2024
28
Copyright Management Information (CMI)
29
Thomson Reuters v. ROSS Intelligence, Inc.
(D. Del. No. 1:20-cv-00613)
5/6/2020Training AIOn September 25, 2023, the court denied both parties’ motions for summary judgment, leaving the issues of direct infringement and fair use for the jury. Motions for summary judgment on defendant’s antitrust and anticompetition claims are pending. Trial on the copyright issues is set for August 26, 2024.

On June 12, 2024, the parties filed a joint letter asking for a pre-trial briefing schedule over whether the court should determine, as a legal question, that aspects of West’s Key Number System are uncopyrightable. Defendant asked the court to hold a “filtration” hearing to decide that copyrightability issue; Plaintiff opposed it on the ground that it should be left to the jury.

On June 14, 2024, the court ordered briefs on the "filtration" hearing’s suitability. On June 21, 2024, Defendant filed a Motion for the Setting of a Filtration Hearing. That same day, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Setting Pre-Trial Deadlines. Plaintiff's response to Defendant's Motion for the Setting of a Filtration Hearing is due by July 12, 2024. Pre-trial Conference is set to take place on August 8, 2024. 		In May 2020, Thomson Reuters initiated legal action against ROSS Intelligence, accusing the artificial intelligence-focused legal research firm of illegally replicating materials from Westlaw’s legal research tool, owned by Thomson Reuters, to train its own AI-driven platform. As the litigation progressed, each entity sought summary judgment: ROSS Intelligence claimed their use of Westlaw's materials constituted fair use, while Thomson Reuters countered that ROSS Intelligence had improperly appropriated Westlaw's content to create a platform that directly competes with their own.6/26/2024
30
Copyright Infringement
31
UMG Recordings, Inc., et al. v. Suno, Inc.
(D. Mass. No. 1:24-cv-11611)		6/24/2024Training AIComplaint filed on June 24, 2024.A group of major record labels, including Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment, and Warner Music Group, allege that Suno, Inc. a generative AI music company, infringed their copyrights by using their sound recordings without permission to train its AI model. The lawsuit is brought only on behalf of the owners of sound recordings allegedly ingested into Suno. 6/26/2024
32
Copyright Infringement
33
UMG Recordings, Inc., et al. v. Uncharted Labs d/b/a Udio (S.D.N.Y. No. 1:24-cv-04777)6/24/2024Training AIComplaint filed on June 24, 2024.A group of major record labels, including Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment, and Warner Music Group, has brought suit against Uncharted Labs, Inc., the company behind the artificial intelligence music generation service Udio, alleging copyright infringement by Udio when it duplicated copyrighted sound recordings all at once, ingested them into their AI model, and use those works to reproduce "convincing imitations of ... a vast range of human musical expression" at the expense of recording artists. The lawsuit is brought only on behalf of the owners of sound recordings allegedly ingested into Udio. 6/26/2024
34
Copyright Infringement
35
In re OpenAI ChatGPT Litigation
(N.D. Cal. No. 3:23-cv-03223)		6/28/2023Training AIOn April 17, 2024, OpenAI filed a reply in support of its motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' first consolidated amended complaint.

A hearing on Plaintiffs' motion to appoint lead plaintiff and lead counsel is scheduled to take place on May 2, 2024.

A hearing on Defendants' reply in support of their motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' first consolidated amended complaint is set for August 1, 2024. 		A group of writers brought legal action against OpenAI, accusing the company of copyright infringement. The claim is that OpenAI used the authors' copyrighted texts to educate its AI offerings, including ChatGPT. OpenAI responded by requesting the dismissal of all allegations except for the direct copyright infringement charge.

What started as three separate cases brought by three different author groups has been consolidated into a single action against OpenAI.
Consolidated Cases: (1) Tremblay v. OpenAI, No. 3:23-cv-03223; (2) Silverman v. OpenAI, No. 3:23-cv-03416; (3) Chabon v. OpenAI, No. 3:23-cv-04625.		6/26/2024
36
Zhang et al. v. Google LLC and Alphabet Inc.
(N.D. Cal. No. 3:24-cv-02531)		4/26/2024Training AIPlaintiffs' response to any motion to dismiss is due by July 18, 2024.

Defendants' reply in support of any motion to dismiss is due by August 1, 2024.

Case Management Statement is due by August 15, 2024. The Initial Case Management Conference is set for August 22, 2024.		A group of four visual artists—Jingna Zhang, Sarah Andersen, Hope Larson, and Jessica Fink—filed a class action lawsuit against Alphabet Inc. and its subsidiary Google LLC, alleging that Google’s AI tool, Imagen, uses copyrighted images as training material despite not being authorized to use those images. Plaintiffs claim Google is guilty of direct copyright infringement and Alphabet is guilty of vicarious copyright infringement. The group of visual artists wants to represent a nationwide class of individuals who own a United States copyright in any work used by Google as a training image for its Google-LAION Models during the class period.6/24/2024
37
Copyright Infringement
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100